A Phase I/II Dose-Escalation Study Evaluating the Safety of 21 Gy, 23 Gy, and 25 Gy for High Dose Rate (HDR) Prostate Brachytherapy: An Interim Toxicity Report

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Single-fraction high dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy has shown improved actuarial biochemical control rates from 66% to 82% with dose escalation from 19 to 20.5 Gy, respectively, but is still inferior to the reported low dose rate brachytherapy control rates of over 90%. We aimed to identify whether dose escalation to 21, 23, and 25 Gy can be safely accomplished.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with previously untreated, pathologically confirmed, low-risk (cT1-T2a, Gleason ≤6, PSA <10 ng/mL) or favorable intermediate risk (Gleason 3+4, percentage of positive biopsy cores <50%, ≤1 NCCN intermediate risk factor) prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled from a single institution. PSA and toxicity assessment were performed at baseline and at routine 6-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

From May 9, 2018 to May 12, 2022, 18 patients were enrolled. None had received prior androgen deprivation therapy, 44% had low risk disease, and 61% were ECOG 0 at baseline. Median age was 68 years (total range: 43-79), and 83% were Caucasian. Eight patients received 21 Gy, nine patients received 23 Gy, and one patient received 25 Gy, with the 25 Gy cohort still accruing. The mean prostate size and range, determined by pre-operative prostate volume study on trans-rectal ultrasound, were as follows: 21Gy cohort (mean: 41.2cc; range: 21.9-63.1cc), 23Gy Cohort (mean: 41.2cc, range 28.3-71.7cc), 25Gy cohort (65.3cc). A median of 17 catheters (range: 16-20) were implanted. At a median follow-up of 35.7 months (range: IQR 4.4 - 50.2), only one grade 3 toxicity was reported, which was an ulcerative colitis (UC) flare noted in a patient whose UC was poorly controlled, requiring multiple courses of prednisone in the 6 months prior to his brachytherapy. Regarding toxicities attributable to therapy, fourteen and four patients experienced a grade 1 and 2 genitourinary toxicity respectively; four and four patients experienced a grade 1 and 2 reproductive system toxicity respectively; one patient experienced a grade 1 GI toxicity. Two patients needed foley catheters upon discharge, with neither requiring the foley long term. There were two treatment failures in the 21Gy cohort at 1.39 and 1.67 years from date of HDR brachytherapy; date of failure was defined by the first PSA 2.0ng/mL over nadir. Of these patients, one underwent focal salvage HDR, whilst the other underwent radical prostatectomy with only 1% of the volume involved by prostate cancer. Of note, there was seminal vesicle involvement on restaging prostate biopsy for the patient that underwent radical prostatectomy, however, this was not appreciated on the final prostatectomy specimen. Both patients have no evidence of disease currently.

CONCLUSION

HDR brachytherapy appears well tolerated in patients with low to favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer at 21 and 23 Gy, with more accrual needed at 25Gy. Long-term follow-up needed to assess efficacy.